Hmmm, how are the variants different enough that the earlier ones infected epithelial cells deep in the lungs while other variants like Omicron infected epithelial cells higher up?
Does cell tropism do that or is it more that they are more effective in different temperature regimes? Influenza seems to be like that (different strains prefer different temperature regimes.)
The Omicrons are radically different from Wuhan -> Delta in terms of spike "on paper," like 1000 years different overnight. OTOH the change in tropism may just be down to H655Y reducing fusion
"Humans still can’t even make proteins. (When we need a DNA polymerase that can withstand the high temperatures of PCR assays, we have to steal them from bacteria that evolved to withstand heat.) Viruses are more complex than a single protein."
I think we need to distinguish between make and design here.
I noticed in the last day or two that the Chinese are claiming their latest quantum computer can break 2048-bit keys. I wonder if the Feds have had access to powerful quantum computers that allow them to simulate the behavior of proteins and cells much better than academia can.
Feb 8, 2023·edited Feb 8, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I found the statement that ADE is caused by IgG class switching to tolerating antibodies to be interesting.
I wanted to clarify this however. Most of the discussion of ADE I have seen seems to revolve around Marek's disease. So, the first question would be do avian B-cells (the original things that B-cells were named from, not birds but how birds do that stuff) even do class switching.
If so, it would be pretty easy to test whether or not the vaccines they are given are causing class switching to tolerating antibodies.
Also, the whole notion of ADE was pretty unsatisfying up to now because they were essentially saying "we believe there's this thing called ADE but we don't have a mechanism."
China is the connector between 911 and Covid. China joined the WTO on 12/11/01, but the announcement was made (and subsequently buried by other news) on 9/12/01. I remember that clearly, working at an international bank, we received daily news blasts such as this. I was in Manhattan on 9/11/01. Still have the PTSD haha. Always asked myself why a plane from Boston could fly down the Hudson River and bypass Indian Point. I mean - if you REALLY want to do damage.....but the Twin Towers hit was a symbolic gesture. There are many rabbit holes to go down at this point.
October 2019 in the Greater NY Area I am chatting with a work colleague. His brother is on work assignment in Wuhan, and the Military Games are taking place, and all foreigners have been sequestered to their hotels, blinds and drapes are closed, and they are literally warned not to look out their windows.
"Furin cleavage". Wasn't that a clue? The fingerprint that leaves no fingerprints is a fingerprint unto itself. Like the put options on AA and UA just before 9/11 was a clue? And disappeared from the news very quickly, and those were the nascent days of re-writing reality. Yes, many can be involved in a cover-up, as long as they benefit monetarily. BTW the largest real estate transaction in NYC history was the sale of the same WTC in mid-2001. I could go on, but probably not safe.
How was a Chinese balloon allowed to float freely over our country? How was a lab-mutated virus allow to go free on the world? Nothing is accidental.
Already ongoing, via crappy disposable products nobody really needs. Dollar General, all Dollar stores and dime stores are literally chinese markets. Amazon sells rabbit meat from China. Ponder that.
Ok. Yeah, I just can't buy into inflated claims of pathogenicity—based on my own experience with it, as well as my wife's, kids' and grandchild's (who was less than a year at the time) experience.
I dunno. After reading your Unz piece and having just listened to McCairn/Rixey's fear porn, it still seems as though little to no progress has been made out of this fiasco. Sigh.
I just listened to the McCairn stream you linked to in this piece, featuring him and Rixey (counter) attacking Couey's theory, and I am wondering if you are saying that your position is somewhere between the two views; to me, Rixey and McCairn come off as biological warfare hyper alarmists—highlighted by McCairn trying to link increased psychotic medication scripts with Covid infection. Am I correct to interpret your view as somewhere between these two opposing theories?
Basically. I still wouldn't bet huge sums of money that SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely competent at harming lungs vs normal coronaviruses, but maybe at this point I would bet a small amount of money that it is. The kids' lungs study drastically reduced my skepticism on that point which is why I linked it in my comment on the Hudson post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-virus-shuts-down-kids-lungs-study
The neuro stuff I'm not as sold on. Ie, it's bad for the nervous system but so are lots of viruses. Brain fog was a crazy experience, weirder than drugs - but so far the evidence suggests its simply inflammation-mediated, which isn't that exciting for a bioweapon.
In your assessment of the likelihood of "bioweapon masterpiece", have you considered the possibility that this development process might have involved Uyghur prison populations? Perhaps as part of a program of bio-weapon development, SARS1 vaccine development, or of monoclonal antibodies? I don't know how likely it is, but I would not expect humanitarian mores to prevent it at any rate.
I acknowledge that fits for a piece that is otherwise missing, which is ability to field test transmission-competence. Therefore it's not fair for me to say for example "they couldn't know it would work" even though I do say that all the time. Well, maybe we're still too early in the process, as I say at the end.
Feb 7, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Hi Brian, thanks for yet another great article. I watched 9/11 happen live on TV with my American girlfriend, I didn't believe for one minute that what we were watching was a "terrorist attack", it seemed way too over the top. Like a Hollywood movie.
I'd probably lean more towards "LIHOP", much like Pearl Harbor, where TPTB knew an attack was coming and did nothing to create a casus belli (the FBI whistleblowers who said they knew what was coming but were ignored, for example - but not even limited to - "Able Danger"). But I've been very deep down the 9/11 rabbit hole and wouldn't like to state definitively what happened.
The same with Covid origins. I really love what you are doing, staying open-minded and changing your stance as new data becomes available, that's exactly how it should be.
I suspect we will probably know what really happened (all this time after 9/11 and I doubt anyone in the "conspiracy" community knows 100% either. But it is worth pursuing nonetheless. I'm very certain Covid was a crime against humanity, and if we could 100% prove it that would be a very noble goal.
Anyway, I really hate this canard people use:
"To most, conspiracies simply can’t be real, because “someone would talk.” Simply to engage in a conspiracy at all has already added too much complexity."
This is an absolute midwit take (obviously not yours!) and I must have attempted to refute it hundreds of times to midwits online. I generally send them this summary regarding MK Ultra:
"Any discussion of the plausibility of conspiracies has to start with MK Ultra—one of the most bizarre “conspiracy theories” that turned out, by all official accounts, to be completely and entirely true. MK Ultra was a CIA program that began in the early 1950s and operated at full scale from then until around 1964. The program was reduced in scope in 1964 and then again in 1967 and wasn’t officially put to an end until 1973 [1]—although 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti claimed in 1977 that the CIA’s assurances that it had stopped the program were nothing more than a “cover story....
It is unambiguously acknowledged that the MK Ultra program was extremely illegal, as it involved performing covert tests and experiments altering the mental state and brain functioning of unwitting, non-consenting, oblivious U.S. citizens. These tests involved everything from hypnosis and sensory deprivation, to verbal and sexual abuse and other forms of psychological torture,[2][3] to giving potent psychoactive drugs like LSD to unsuspecting U.S. citizens.
Again, all of this is universally acknowledged in the public record: the U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 1984 that “the program consisted of . . . drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects.” Forty-four colleges and universities, fifteen pharmaceutical companies, twelve hospitals, and three prisons are also known to have participated, and yet despite how many people were involved in these severe abuses of the public trust, it took more than twenty years for any information to actually surface about what was happening.[5] These institutions are also known to have collaborated in abusive and nonconsensual experimentation with drugs like LSD on children, including children with schizophrenia and autism."
Haha - but, have you considered that MK Ultra was just "emergent"? It's a combination of pure midwittery and, like I say, some people who think you can impose a theoretical definition onto reality to determine what is possible. These people, I think, don't essentially care what reality really is. They are only concerned with mastery of concepts. Eugyppius is this in case anyone thinks I am being too subtle.
Likewise, I remember seeing the second plane live while at work, but now think I might have invented that memory. Either way it was a vivid experience but since I was at work I never saw or heard a thing about WTC 7. So like I said, since "box cutters" became the going official narrative I've been aware that it was an op. I think everyone has always known it was an op. BOX CUTTERS, IT'S INSULTING. YOU DON'T HAND OVER A PLANE BECAUSE OF A BOX CUTTER.
I just hadn't looked into the necessity to bring down the buildings with something other than the planes before a year-ish ago as it seemed unimportant. But in gaging how complex ops can be, the "budget," it's very important.
LOL are you really throwing shade at Eugyppius? LOL
But I totally see your point about the box-cutters- could have been guns- but then they would have to admit that they suck at stopping these things, especially as they were probably warned.
There is a loooot to un-pack there, and so I must let it go for now. I'm un-vaxxed. I was not anti vaxx (I've had too many in my well-travelled 72 years), but I am getting there. Also, I was not an anti-virus 'nutter' either, but SARS/Covid has helped me to understand that received viruses are not a thing per se. However.... 9-11? A building that size utilising open-web joists is just utterly absurd. It was a mistake, but who thought up the mad ploy to fix it? Dunno. Nothing really surprises me these days.
Feb 7, 2023·edited Feb 8, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Why do your cross posts not turn up here?
I saw this in Austrian China:
"The same is true of people protected by the use of hydroxychloroquine plus zinc as a prophylactic."
Hmmm, interesting.
I am reading the whole thing because there is some interesting info there. I had assumed that since RT-PCR (reverse-transcription PCR, the actual technique) could have issues, but their data does seem to suggest a strong correlation between people with symptoms and a positive test.
I sat through three and a half hours of that video to hear you mentioned.
Cross-posts are email only - otherwise it would be reprinting w/o permission, so that makes sense. Still, it does result in a weird interaction with the reader.
The complexity angle just strikes me as Occams's repackaged, and I don't find it useful personally. I look at evidence and weigh it. I believe that evidence stacks eventually tip over into an inevitable conclusion if you gather enough, and understand how the various pieces build on each other in n-dimensional space. This is pattern recognition in a multivariate model. Looking wide, not narrow.
If you had 9/11 under your belt coming into Covid - you knew what was possible. One of videos buried on the A&E911 truth website is an analytical chemist who collected up red/grey particles from the dust samples that appeared based on elemental analysis (SEM-EDX) to be like thermite, and ran them on a differential scanning calorimeter. He had to separate these from the pure Fe spheres also in the dust, which of course were the reaction products of ignited thermite. What did he see? A rapid exothermic energy release once he got the sample above 400 degrees.
The explanatory power in that single set of findings is remarkable. How did the temperatures in the pit get so high - higher than could be explained by transient jet fuel fires by far. How did the giant beams get cut? The only way building 7 could have gone down at acceleration due to gravity was for total removal of all structural elements, simultaneously. That is what happened. Complexity schmexity.
There is NO WAY on earth that Covid was a natural release from nature. I have no comment on the various modes you present beyond that. How did France know to initiate removal of HCQ's OTC status in late 2019? How did the anti-early treatment campaign become so coordinated, so fast? Who the hell figured out to weaponize pharmacists against doctors prescribing off-label? That had never happened before.. Never. Surgisphere for fuck's sake? This was an operation.. period.
I do hope you get back to the hardcore biology soon. Where is this mess headed? I have had to do it myself for now... so I post this, knowing that you may even poke holes in it... but that's okay. That's how science works, right?
Right, but like I say you can contort things to fit a complexity weight model, i.e. every "what else can do X" is added complexity to the null hypothesis (da planes, da planes). Gage mentions the red/grey fragments, that's the custom use thermite propellent (I added in an edit because I couldn't see where to fit it at first)
The biology isn't moving too fast. e.g. I posted about the 3rd Omicron breakthrough study, confirmed the other 2, but didn't directly corroborate IgG4 levels. Most of what is coming out is still a year+ behind
Thank you Brian.. sorry if I was in a snarky mood when I wrote my reply last night. I like your addition of the word "weight" to the phrase "complexity weight model". It is my contention that most people have little native ability to assign weight to this kind of evidence. If they did, they would not jump to conclusions when somebody makes an outrageous claim that the natural progression of recrystallization viewed on a microscope slide as an aqueous solution dries out is nanobots creating 5G routers.
I'll tell you a funny story; In the 1990's I had a small side business measuring and working with electricians to mitigate power frequency EMF's in people's homes. This was back when some scientists were associating exposure to these fields with childhood leukemia, so many momma bears were buying gaussmeters and freaking out when they found hotspots in their homes. I have a first principles aversion to exposure to all that is unnatural, be it EMF's, disinfection byproducts in the drinking water, of plasticizers in our food from containers. Anyway, EMF mitigation was pure science... when a house is wired clean, the equal and opposite currents in each wire pair perfectly cancel and there is no measurable EMF away from the wire. Working with an electrician, we could usually find the source of the problem - a resistive neutral that was forcing current back out through the ground rod, etc. Here's the point; Some people thought I was a conspiracy theorist for doing this. Now when folks like you and I point out the absurdity of the nano-crystal bots, we are viewed as anti-conspiracy theorists. Most people just don't have the grounding to weigh evidence in the realm of science and technology. While the biological effects of exposure were open to debate, the fields were real.
To revisit the evidence of thermite for a moment, the published paper on the subject relates that the same multi-faceted signature of engineered, bi-layer morphology, elemental fingerprint, AND it was found in four separately gathered dust samples.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
My point is; this is incredibly specific. The weight of this in a model trying to explain building 7, which based on all visual clues was purposely imploded, is immense. As you move outward from Manhattan that day to the odd things about the Pentagon (the initial hole before the building collapsed further did not describe the entry of a large jetliner) and the smoking hole in Shanksville (we are asked to believe that the dirt there had extraordinary viscoelastic properties such that all of the plane parts buried themselves, unlike all other recorded plane crashes). The Shanksville story had layers too - I recall a lady who lived nearby had been in her minivan when a small white "plane" flew low overhead, went over the tree line, and exploded. She wanted to tell her story to interviewers. Men in suits came to her house and asked her to change her story. The weight becomes immense... the possibility of coincidence remote.
I appreciate your continuing to look at the potential various effects of the IgG4 phenomenon. As far as I am concerned, the weight of the evidence stack for making the case that the shots are really bad mojo for anyone fighting melanoma is overwhelming. The relationship between IgG4 and melanoma has been known for some time... I just think that intuitively, most would have thought the IgG4 must be cancer antigen-specific. But no.
I don't understand why, given that we have all this money being spent on public schools, we don't use it to teach simple trades and engineering stuff. People should be able to walk around the world and understand what they are seeing. Simple things like septic tanks, what bedrock is vs regolith, etc. I didn't learn any of that until very recently despite being "bright at science" in grade school.
This discussion is very topical since I think we need to fight against the Scott Adams "coin flip" contention and find a means to describe how some of us came to the right conclusions very early on. How to codify this process? I don't have the answers to a universally applicable protocol, but again, for me, beyond just being willing to QUESTION EVERYTHING there is this business of weighing evidence. In a world where most don't understand the difference between linear and exponential functions, I don't hold out much hope.
I agree, and this is why I despair at the tendency for "our side" to latch onto the "here's a string of quotes from abstracts and a chart that PROVES the vaxxed are going to die from OAS" style of "analysis." Because it just reflects the original core problem, which is not understanding that in science and especially biology most claims are not grounded in actual knowledge. It needs to all be relabeled natural philosophy like I have said elsewhere. "Nation's top natural philosopher says experimental gene injection safe" is transparently problematic.
The operation was to convince the world, via harmonized fear porn and not fit for purpose PCR "tests" that the constellation of seasonal respiratory distresses, largely the flu, was the bioweapon that was deployed by the injections. Meanwhile the ifr turned out to be quite similar to the flu (less at most age grouos) via treatment prevention and Cares Act incentivized iatrogenicide. They literally debated, in email exchanges. which animal to blame for zoonosis without consideration for wether or not said animals were sold at the Wuhan wet market.
Off-Guardian did a multi-part series on 9/11 - Plandemonium parallels. And there is an excellent Mark Crispin Miller 3 part series of videos on the topic.
Ultimately, I feel like the dialogue on most of these topics is hopelessly flawed by a desire to simplify and classify. I mean, what does “inside job” even mean? The government did it? What the hell is the “government” anyway?
As always, I feel as much as we would like to construct overarching narratives, most events are too complex to do so. All one can hope to do is ask very specific questions to find particular answers. With 9/11, WTC7 stands out like a sore thumb. I might be able to buy into airplanes and jet fuel, combined with a unique (and ridiculous?) architectural configuration leading to the pancaking effect for the Twin Towers, but there’s frankly no reasonable explanation why I shouldn’t believe my eyes when it comes to 7 looking like a controlled demolition. As far as the grand scheme of things goes, that means the government (whatever that is) and it’s authorities are not completely accurate in their account of the events of that day. Which means they’re not to be trusted entirely. Also, water is wet.
COVID and the pandemic is even a trickier nut to crack because it’s not a singular event. Much of it is, by nature, unable to be seen. That means it doesn’t even require a conspiracy of deception to create confusion. It just needs ignorance, hubris, profit motive, and a willingness to engage in storytelling. The latter is perhaps the most powerful. Ultimately, we’re all “conspiracy theorists”, mainstream and alternative sources alike. It’s so hard to not take something that we’ve deemed fact and extrapolate dozens of additions conclusions onto it, and most of the time we’re completely unaware that we’re doing it. And unfortunately, this method of narrative construction is the only way to even build consensus, because you can’t agree with something if nothing is being asserted. So to me, aside from on the most specific inquiries, consensus will always be wrong.
I can imagine that when people get to Heaven the first thing is they report their impression of reality to an interviewer and the interviewer is just constantly doing that "shake head and raise eyebrows at the same time" thing
Feb 7, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Maybe a problem of the conspiracy minded is their susceptibility to far over-estimate their own importance in the grand scheme of things :-) whereas in reality the other 98% of society are a much easier play.
Possibly there is some logic in the claim that the US develop a 'bio weapon' and release near the WIV so the Chinese government get blamed for it, but in that case the Darpa proposal via EcoHealth would be a really stupid own goal as it turns blame back to the NIH and saint Fauci and indeed the US goverment itself.
I think that proposal tipped the Chinese government off such that they initiated their own research, and the efforts at containing it sadly were markedly inferior to the contagiousness of the virus.
As for WTC the controlled demolition theories divert attention away from the likelihood Mossad knew it would happen and chose not to inform the US, so they could be useful as a smokescreen to any 'deep state'.
Right, but the diverting to the NIH would have been essentially brilliance. It locked in the counter-narrative as this "forbidden fruit" that could then be tossed to the masses like limited hangout Oprah car keys.
Which is the problem with it, as I acknowledge. Maybe it's too brilliant. Maybe it implies the Government cares what we think at all. Both dangerous assumptions.
Feb 7, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I’m kind of thinking that the Mossad probably told the US agencies about parts of the 9-11 plot and they chose to ignore it-just like they ignored the Russians when they were warned about the Boston marathon bombers. A lot of this is the same exact patterns over and over again. The intelligence agencies aren’t anywhere as clever as they think they are. And that instead of focusing on the hijackers, they were spying illegally on Americans. After the towers fell, they blew up tower 7 for reasons unknown (maybe debris from the planes that would have shown another thing they screwed up at, like explosive material, etc fell on that building and they had to get rid of that evidence), and then they used the whole cock-up to usher in something to cover up their earlier illegal spying on US citizens, they pushed through the Patriot Act with the horrible FISA court- the FBI plaything for 3 hop wire-taps.
First, Nick Hudson is about to convert to our NAV cult. He is scheduled to be initiated this February new Moon, I have already bought the goat's blood from Amazon. It's a messy ceremony, I've asked for an abridged version with fewer pig-latin words. they won't listen because I'm new and still lower in the hierarchy, that's why I have to bring more people.
The truth is the NAV is not a red herring or a psyop. This is simplicity and honesty. It is difficult to cross the sea of confusion to reach the island of simplicity. We are waiting for all the good guys to follow the stars and reach here some day.
Brian, do you know how to use an astrolabe?
Anyway.
I remember Kevin McCairn from his fight with Mark Bailey. The celts are so funny. This beautiful and endless energy that screams "YOU ARE WRONG AND NOW LET'S FIGTH! RULES OF MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY!"
Tom Cowan has the same energy. A lot of people dislike him precisely for that, I think. And Kelly Brogan also has mean celtic energy. And Kevin Corbett. So many of you. I can't keep up.
That energy is best directed against the British, who are always wrong about everything. A bunch of savage vikings. No respect for the Earth. I understand your hatred for the English, I'm from Spain (about 10% percent celtic)
To be fair, the English have some qualities. Not in politics or in anything that has to do with food, dancing or being happy, but there are some qualities somewhere, I'm sure. For example, I like watercolor painting. Probably they stole the idea from the Scots, but, hey, all empires steal ideas all the fucking day: the Babylonians (too long to explain,) the Romans (almost every Greek invention,) the Chinese (Buddhism).
Nature often rhymes, you say. There is one thought that often appears in my highly chaotic thinking: is the spontaneous formation of life possible? Years ago I was reading that story about the hypothetical primordial soup. The story, very encyclopedically dumbed down, was leading the reader to form the image that all life comes from one ancestor replicating protein-like structure that just appeared in one place, just like that. This is problematic. Why only one tiny spot of the primordial soup would have exactly the only composition necessary for life to emerge after the workings of randomness? Wouldn't there many such spots everywhere? Many ancestors? No! The real truth is there is just one Most Recent Common Ancestor. A Salomonic solution to a dilemma that appeared from the vice of using wrong premises and taking a myth seriously.
So. What if it was possible for life to emerge anywhere, anytime? That this was not an uncommon phenomenon? Only that they don't go too far. They become extinct soon. Before they can pay their income tax. Outrageous!
What if living bodies were a good place on earth for new life forms to appear?
So, for whatever non-reason, a cosmic ray crosses a tiny spot above my right eyebrow. A few bits and pieces of incomplete DNA coming from a dead cell get the spark of life. The "four letters" of life coalesce in a new combination that happens to be valid.
For some unknown mechanism, the new DNA (or whatever we choose to call that) begins to attract matter and forms a membrane. It is now all cozy in its nucleus, drafting a new conspiracy about the elections. It begins to do more magic, and chooses to become some kind of cell. It even decides to do some fancy meiosis. Until now, an immune system was observing the whole process with great scientific curiosity. But its killer instinct decides to pass to action right after mitosis ends, and my real human cells begin to cry for halp. The new species without ancestor has died: total population of 2.
Is this story possible according to your vast knowledge, dear Brian?
If so, I imagine that we may be at greater danger than we think we are. If we choose to be paranoid. The least psychotic part of my brain says: if nothing has happened yet, why bother looking for those disgusting actualities? Let them remain theoretical and enjoy life!
From a page in from the book of potentialities, published in the year 2333 AD: "Three hundred years ago, it was discovered for the last time that viruses don't exist. The phenomena observed carefully over the years was being explained using a wrong set of concepts. That lead to much strife and destruction. Scientists discovered that diseases of the body have many causes and they began to find many cures very soon after that. This lead to two centuries of very fast discoveries. The first Intergalactic probes, the slower ones, were built on year 2220 by the 26th clone of Doctor Brian Mowrey. The probes, now only in museums, allowed deep exploration and the first full teleportation of a Shih Tzu dog to a inhabitable planet in Andromeda, who reported back saying everything was okay and he wanted more jerky."
Nature often rhymes. Yes. The zero transmission is almost-not-a-virus-ism. But more conservative. And excessive. Too much to protect. Something 's gotta give. Rhyming with that, the more progressive "A little help" VOCs model seems to be more unstable. In the end we will all believe what Malone (is Malone an Irish name?) says we must believe, right? Isn't he like Asimov's "The Mule" character in a couple of ways? Anyway, I think Malone likes that progressive model better than the infectious clones model. He will not go near NAV, that was made very clear a year ago.
I think that is a shame. I mean, we have this beautiful false model of NAV that leaves everyone off the hook and the comptrollers of the narrative won't use it yet?
Well, there is the Omertà. A lot of people have a bookcase full of alibis and excuses, but their servants are criminals. They must protect themselves. A brotherhood of the servants of the perpetrators was born. They are not dumb. They know they can be thrown under the bus. They need power too.
NAV would destroy them, I think.
The omertà model is simple. We are all blocked because they need to have us forzen in place. It's like the 9-11 willfull ignorance model. It simplifies everything. People prefer not to go to war. I don't hear, I don't see, I don't speak. Nothing fancy. Just exploiting the bias for normalcy.
But it won't work this time. There is no normalcy. Kids are dying and I am not a hysteric. Mark Crispin Miller's work says the English suck and I am right on kids being murdered and people becoming sterile and the largest land grab in history, etc. This is more huge than we ever thought.
I think you will be closer to NAV before Christmas. Not yet there. You will be like Nick Hudson around May 2024, and your induction in the denialist cult will take place in 18th June 2024.
Public health, disease prevention is very important. If we discover that we have been doing it wrong, in a few ways, we may allow ourselves to grieve for a minute or two, and then learn how to do it better. Change can be good sometimes. Important things should not be any where near corrupt executive of any form of government, of private or of public affairs. That is my worthless opinion of today.
I have written enough. I hope you laughed from my comment, which was laced with a few lines designed for at least a chortle.
"What if it was possible for life to emerge anywhere, anytime? That this was not an uncommon phenomenon?"
There is certainly something curious about the fact that so much can be done with just a handful of atoms. DNA is not merely a "code" like bits written in a disk, it's more like the bits in the disk can themselves perform processor functions. So you have gene regulation from secondary structure, ribose modifications, electrical interactions, etc. Was it just an accident that sugars can function as supercomputers, seemingly coming to the threshold of possessing consciousness?
But I don't see how that is a good argument against viruses as we understand them in the post-genetic era being real, quite the contrary.
I am aiming for the third way that is "viruses are real but not as we thought."
There is the story that there are code for viruses buried inside the individual human genome. What if due to some internal process related to the death of the cell an enzyme were to create a virus (perhaps one that has never existed outside, because of some error) from inside the cell, which copies itself, and then, as the cell dies, it comes outside the cell, creating the appearance that the cell died because an exogenous virus made it sick and finally killed it?
And this could be elicited by some weird frequency from the outside (I'm thinking in a microwave oven big enough to receive a 6" 260 pounds politician, but other "death ray"-like frequencies or waves are valid for this thought experiment, like the disintegration gun in "Mars Attacks".) That frequency that tells cells to die, and produce "viruses" can affect (in this conjecture) many people at once, creating the illusion of "contagion" of disease.
This is a way to put together parts of the NAV-side theories and parts of the standard microbiology theories.
Said more schematically:
1. Something outside happens
2. Cell is dying, time for life to bug-out
3. viruses are now detectable around other cells because a sibling cell has exploded and everything is dirty
4. scientists find the stuff that appeared after 2, and claim it was there before 1 and caused 1
5. Point one is not limited to one individual organism
This conjecture is a not an argument against viruses being real, but an argument for viruses being not pathogenic, but the result of a disease process.
The possibility that endogenous virus can cause disease in other cells is something that probably would be denied by most people in the NAV-side. I happen to believe that a broken piece of brick and mortar that falls as an building is being destroyed and falls over me is likely to hurt me. Perhaps this analogy cannot happen at the cell level.
Last, the appearance of an endogenous virus that has no real "ancestor" in the world, which is part of the idea of "spontaneous apparition of life anywhere anytime," is not limited to a buried virus sequence showing up randomly, but also is of application to smaller parts, such as atoms and molecules that are not part of a DNA molecule.
I understand this is all very "science-fiction" sounding, but I think this is a safe place to expose ny conjectures.
So, if "you," as in an organism, have genes for that, where is the best place to put them? For example if you are bacteria, you want to gobble up the molecules including DNA from other versions of you that have died. The "hive" that is you doesn't want to just let those molecules go to waste. So you would clearly benefit from some sort of self-destruct sequence genes, indeed such genes are abundant. But a lot of Programmed Cell Death depends on fratricide. This implies that dying cells can't always be trusted to execute PCD, and that makes sense, because if they are dying then gene expression is going to be spotty. But with communal PCD the living part of you is still having to expend metabolic resources to recycle from the dead part of you.
So you can see where this might create an evolutionary landscape where the same communal PCD genes get exported to a self-replicating plasmid. Then as soon as non-competent, dying bacteria stop expressing immune restriction enzymes the virus does the work for the hive in recycling the material. This seems to feature in floating bacteria where the UV-killed ones near the top are lysed by viruses so their resources sink down to the living ones below (because viruses are more resilient to UV despite being "killed" by it) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344481672_Viruses_and_the_Evolution_of_Life)
So there's no real distinction. Genes don't have to come from inside to be part of "the genome" for any life form.
Thank you for your answer. I'll keep that in mind. I'm learning so much these days. Substack is great.
One more question, please: the higher resiliency of viruses relative to bacteria is due to the size difference? Like a 6'8" infantry soldier (bacterium) is an easier target for snipers (photons) than a 5'4" infanry soldier (virus)?
Well, that's certainly beyond what I thought the going substack character limit is, haha. I have been told that I am 50% Irish (haven't met said 50%). In light of this, I decided against describing McCairn's persona using a Jeremy Clarkson reference, even though there's heavy class warfare overlap.
"The truth is the NAV is not a red herring or a psyop. This is simplicity and honesty." My critiques of NAV are usually that it is disempowering. It asks us to surrender naked-eye observations and assessments of the human experience to whether electron microscopes can jump over this or that hurdle. The word "virus" predates germ theory. It simply means invisible disease transmitting thing. Can anyone in NAV space explain why people before germ theory, who all lived on farms and spent every hour immersed in nature, were poorer judges of biology than themselves?
Probably substack will add a "character limit in comments" feature someday, and then you will have to put me down like a Newfoundland Mastif who eats too much.
I will ask around about your question about the traditional views of common people.
I understand your point about it being disempowering.
The electron microscope issue is not exactly where they insist, but in the need to correctly find something from a diseased individual using analytic chemistry methods.
I think Cowan criticizes the optical microscope as being disempowering or confusing in one of his books. He admits his books contain errors, by the way. That's one of the problems of publishing many books: one is bound to go to each household apologizing for this page or that graph that had the x-axis in a log scale but the curve was linear for an inexplicable error.
Hmmm, how are the variants different enough that the earlier ones infected epithelial cells deep in the lungs while other variants like Omicron infected epithelial cells higher up?
Does cell tropism do that or is it more that they are more effective in different temperature regimes? Influenza seems to be like that (different strains prefer different temperature regimes.)
The Omicrons are radically different from Wuhan -> Delta in terms of spike "on paper," like 1000 years different overnight. OTOH the change in tropism may just be down to H655Y reducing fusion
"Humans still can’t even make proteins. (When we need a DNA polymerase that can withstand the high temperatures of PCR assays, we have to steal them from bacteria that evolved to withstand heat.) Viruses are more complex than a single protein."
I think we need to distinguish between make and design here.
I noticed in the last day or two that the Chinese are claiming their latest quantum computer can break 2048-bit keys. I wonder if the Feds have had access to powerful quantum computers that allow them to simulate the behavior of proteins and cells much better than academia can.
By "make" I meant design, fair to say not an accurate word choice
This was a very interesting comment from Charles Rixey:
"Whether or not you get infected is a function of your immune system and the viral load you get" or something like that.
I found the statement that ADE is caused by IgG class switching to tolerating antibodies to be interesting.
I wanted to clarify this however. Most of the discussion of ADE I have seen seems to revolve around Marek's disease. So, the first question would be do avian B-cells (the original things that B-cells were named from, not birds but how birds do that stuff) even do class switching.
If so, it would be pretty easy to test whether or not the vaccines they are given are causing class switching to tolerating antibodies.
Also, the whole notion of ADE was pretty unsatisfying up to now because they were essentially saying "we believe there's this thing called ADE but we don't have a mechanism."
China is the connector between 911 and Covid. China joined the WTO on 12/11/01, but the announcement was made (and subsequently buried by other news) on 9/12/01. I remember that clearly, working at an international bank, we received daily news blasts such as this. I was in Manhattan on 9/11/01. Still have the PTSD haha. Always asked myself why a plane from Boston could fly down the Hudson River and bypass Indian Point. I mean - if you REALLY want to do damage.....but the Twin Towers hit was a symbolic gesture. There are many rabbit holes to go down at this point.
October 2019 in the Greater NY Area I am chatting with a work colleague. His brother is on work assignment in Wuhan, and the Military Games are taking place, and all foreigners have been sequestered to their hotels, blinds and drapes are closed, and they are literally warned not to look out their windows.
"Furin cleavage". Wasn't that a clue? The fingerprint that leaves no fingerprints is a fingerprint unto itself. Like the put options on AA and UA just before 9/11 was a clue? And disappeared from the news very quickly, and those were the nascent days of re-writing reality. Yes, many can be involved in a cover-up, as long as they benefit monetarily. BTW the largest real estate transaction in NYC history was the sale of the same WTC in mid-2001. I could go on, but probably not safe.
How was a Chinese balloon allowed to float freely over our country? How was a lab-mutated virus allow to go free on the world? Nothing is accidental.
Next those diabolical Chinese will be sending the steam ships at us!
Already ongoing, via crappy disposable products nobody really needs. Dollar General, all Dollar stores and dime stores are literally chinese markets. Amazon sells rabbit meat from China. Ponder that.
Ok. Yeah, I just can't buy into inflated claims of pathogenicity—based on my own experience with it, as well as my wife's, kids' and grandchild's (who was less than a year at the time) experience.
I dunno. After reading your Unz piece and having just listened to McCairn/Rixey's fear porn, it still seems as though little to no progress has been made out of this fiasco. Sigh.
I just listened to the McCairn stream you linked to in this piece, featuring him and Rixey (counter) attacking Couey's theory, and I am wondering if you are saying that your position is somewhere between the two views; to me, Rixey and McCairn come off as biological warfare hyper alarmists—highlighted by McCairn trying to link increased psychotic medication scripts with Covid infection. Am I correct to interpret your view as somewhere between these two opposing theories?
Basically. I still wouldn't bet huge sums of money that SARS-CoV-2 is uniquely competent at harming lungs vs normal coronaviruses, but maybe at this point I would bet a small amount of money that it is. The kids' lungs study drastically reduced my skepticism on that point which is why I linked it in my comment on the Hudson post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-virus-shuts-down-kids-lungs-study
The neuro stuff I'm not as sold on. Ie, it's bad for the nervous system but so are lots of viruses. Brain fog was a crazy experience, weirder than drugs - but so far the evidence suggests its simply inflammation-mediated, which isn't that exciting for a bioweapon.
In your assessment of the likelihood of "bioweapon masterpiece", have you considered the possibility that this development process might have involved Uyghur prison populations? Perhaps as part of a program of bio-weapon development, SARS1 vaccine development, or of monoclonal antibodies? I don't know how likely it is, but I would not expect humanitarian mores to prevent it at any rate.
I acknowledge that fits for a piece that is otherwise missing, which is ability to field test transmission-competence. Therefore it's not fair for me to say for example "they couldn't know it would work" even though I do say that all the time. Well, maybe we're still too early in the process, as I say at the end.
Hi Brian, thanks for yet another great article. I watched 9/11 happen live on TV with my American girlfriend, I didn't believe for one minute that what we were watching was a "terrorist attack", it seemed way too over the top. Like a Hollywood movie.
I'd probably lean more towards "LIHOP", much like Pearl Harbor, where TPTB knew an attack was coming and did nothing to create a casus belli (the FBI whistleblowers who said they knew what was coming but were ignored, for example - but not even limited to - "Able Danger"). But I've been very deep down the 9/11 rabbit hole and wouldn't like to state definitively what happened.
The same with Covid origins. I really love what you are doing, staying open-minded and changing your stance as new data becomes available, that's exactly how it should be.
I suspect we will probably know what really happened (all this time after 9/11 and I doubt anyone in the "conspiracy" community knows 100% either. But it is worth pursuing nonetheless. I'm very certain Covid was a crime against humanity, and if we could 100% prove it that would be a very noble goal.
Anyway, I really hate this canard people use:
"To most, conspiracies simply can’t be real, because “someone would talk.” Simply to engage in a conspiracy at all has already added too much complexity."
This is an absolute midwit take (obviously not yours!) and I must have attempted to refute it hundreds of times to midwits online. I generally send them this summary regarding MK Ultra:
"Any discussion of the plausibility of conspiracies has to start with MK Ultra—one of the most bizarre “conspiracy theories” that turned out, by all official accounts, to be completely and entirely true. MK Ultra was a CIA program that began in the early 1950s and operated at full scale from then until around 1964. The program was reduced in scope in 1964 and then again in 1967 and wasn’t officially put to an end until 1973 [1]—although 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti claimed in 1977 that the CIA’s assurances that it had stopped the program were nothing more than a “cover story....
It is unambiguously acknowledged that the MK Ultra program was extremely illegal, as it involved performing covert tests and experiments altering the mental state and brain functioning of unwitting, non-consenting, oblivious U.S. citizens. These tests involved everything from hypnosis and sensory deprivation, to verbal and sexual abuse and other forms of psychological torture,[2][3] to giving potent psychoactive drugs like LSD to unsuspecting U.S. citizens.
Again, all of this is universally acknowledged in the public record: the U.S. General Accounting Office reported in 1984 that “the program consisted of . . . drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects.” Forty-four colleges and universities, fifteen pharmaceutical companies, twelve hospitals, and three prisons are also known to have participated, and yet despite how many people were involved in these severe abuses of the public trust, it took more than twenty years for any information to actually surface about what was happening.[5] These institutions are also known to have collaborated in abusive and nonconsensual experimentation with drugs like LSD on children, including children with schizophrenia and autism."
https://counter-currents.com/2016/12/another-slice-of-pizzagate/
Haha - but, have you considered that MK Ultra was just "emergent"? It's a combination of pure midwittery and, like I say, some people who think you can impose a theoretical definition onto reality to determine what is possible. These people, I think, don't essentially care what reality really is. They are only concerned with mastery of concepts. Eugyppius is this in case anyone thinks I am being too subtle.
Likewise, I remember seeing the second plane live while at work, but now think I might have invented that memory. Either way it was a vivid experience but since I was at work I never saw or heard a thing about WTC 7. So like I said, since "box cutters" became the going official narrative I've been aware that it was an op. I think everyone has always known it was an op. BOX CUTTERS, IT'S INSULTING. YOU DON'T HAND OVER A PLANE BECAUSE OF A BOX CUTTER.
I just hadn't looked into the necessity to bring down the buildings with something other than the planes before a year-ish ago as it seemed unimportant. But in gaging how complex ops can be, the "budget," it's very important.
LOL are you really throwing shade at Eugyppius? LOL
But I totally see your point about the box-cutters- could have been guns- but then they would have to admit that they suck at stopping these things, especially as they were probably warned.
Interesting article. I am definitely on the half & half at this stage to.
There is a loooot to un-pack there, and so I must let it go for now. I'm un-vaxxed. I was not anti vaxx (I've had too many in my well-travelled 72 years), but I am getting there. Also, I was not an anti-virus 'nutter' either, but SARS/Covid has helped me to understand that received viruses are not a thing per se. However.... 9-11? A building that size utilising open-web joists is just utterly absurd. It was a mistake, but who thought up the mad ploy to fix it? Dunno. Nothing really surprises me these days.
Why do your cross posts not turn up here?
I saw this in Austrian China:
"The same is true of people protected by the use of hydroxychloroquine plus zinc as a prophylactic."
Hmmm, interesting.
I am reading the whole thing because there is some interesting info there. I had assumed that since RT-PCR (reverse-transcription PCR, the actual technique) could have issues, but their data does seem to suggest a strong correlation between people with symptoms and a positive test.
I sat through three and a half hours of that video to hear you mentioned.
Cross-posts are email only - otherwise it would be reprinting w/o permission, so that makes sense. Still, it does result in a weird interaction with the reader.
Yes, lots of info in that post, I'm also reading up https://austrianchina.substack.com/p/top-10-myths-about-china-part1
But maybe it's all information warfare like Jon suggests
The complexity angle just strikes me as Occams's repackaged, and I don't find it useful personally. I look at evidence and weigh it. I believe that evidence stacks eventually tip over into an inevitable conclusion if you gather enough, and understand how the various pieces build on each other in n-dimensional space. This is pattern recognition in a multivariate model. Looking wide, not narrow.
If you had 9/11 under your belt coming into Covid - you knew what was possible. One of videos buried on the A&E911 truth website is an analytical chemist who collected up red/grey particles from the dust samples that appeared based on elemental analysis (SEM-EDX) to be like thermite, and ran them on a differential scanning calorimeter. He had to separate these from the pure Fe spheres also in the dust, which of course were the reaction products of ignited thermite. What did he see? A rapid exothermic energy release once he got the sample above 400 degrees.
The explanatory power in that single set of findings is remarkable. How did the temperatures in the pit get so high - higher than could be explained by transient jet fuel fires by far. How did the giant beams get cut? The only way building 7 could have gone down at acceleration due to gravity was for total removal of all structural elements, simultaneously. That is what happened. Complexity schmexity.
There is NO WAY on earth that Covid was a natural release from nature. I have no comment on the various modes you present beyond that. How did France know to initiate removal of HCQ's OTC status in late 2019? How did the anti-early treatment campaign become so coordinated, so fast? Who the hell figured out to weaponize pharmacists against doctors prescribing off-label? That had never happened before.. Never. Surgisphere for fuck's sake? This was an operation.. period.
I do hope you get back to the hardcore biology soon. Where is this mess headed? I have had to do it myself for now... so I post this, knowing that you may even poke holes in it... but that's okay. That's how science works, right?
https://lettingdataspeak.substack.com/p/tying-together-the-elements-of-an
Tying together the elements of an IgG4-based hypothesis for mRNA-transfection induced "Turbo" cancers
The clue to watch and listen for is, "after the booster".
Right, but like I say you can contort things to fit a complexity weight model, i.e. every "what else can do X" is added complexity to the null hypothesis (da planes, da planes). Gage mentions the red/grey fragments, that's the custom use thermite propellent (I added in an edit because I couldn't see where to fit it at first)
The biology isn't moving too fast. e.g. I posted about the 3rd Omicron breakthrough study, confirmed the other 2, but didn't directly corroborate IgG4 levels. Most of what is coming out is still a year+ behind
Thank you Brian.. sorry if I was in a snarky mood when I wrote my reply last night. I like your addition of the word "weight" to the phrase "complexity weight model". It is my contention that most people have little native ability to assign weight to this kind of evidence. If they did, they would not jump to conclusions when somebody makes an outrageous claim that the natural progression of recrystallization viewed on a microscope slide as an aqueous solution dries out is nanobots creating 5G routers.
I'll tell you a funny story; In the 1990's I had a small side business measuring and working with electricians to mitigate power frequency EMF's in people's homes. This was back when some scientists were associating exposure to these fields with childhood leukemia, so many momma bears were buying gaussmeters and freaking out when they found hotspots in their homes. I have a first principles aversion to exposure to all that is unnatural, be it EMF's, disinfection byproducts in the drinking water, of plasticizers in our food from containers. Anyway, EMF mitigation was pure science... when a house is wired clean, the equal and opposite currents in each wire pair perfectly cancel and there is no measurable EMF away from the wire. Working with an electrician, we could usually find the source of the problem - a resistive neutral that was forcing current back out through the ground rod, etc. Here's the point; Some people thought I was a conspiracy theorist for doing this. Now when folks like you and I point out the absurdity of the nano-crystal bots, we are viewed as anti-conspiracy theorists. Most people just don't have the grounding to weigh evidence in the realm of science and technology. While the biological effects of exposure were open to debate, the fields were real.
To revisit the evidence of thermite for a moment, the published paper on the subject relates that the same multi-faceted signature of engineered, bi-layer morphology, elemental fingerprint, AND it was found in four separately gathered dust samples.
https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
My point is; this is incredibly specific. The weight of this in a model trying to explain building 7, which based on all visual clues was purposely imploded, is immense. As you move outward from Manhattan that day to the odd things about the Pentagon (the initial hole before the building collapsed further did not describe the entry of a large jetliner) and the smoking hole in Shanksville (we are asked to believe that the dirt there had extraordinary viscoelastic properties such that all of the plane parts buried themselves, unlike all other recorded plane crashes). The Shanksville story had layers too - I recall a lady who lived nearby had been in her minivan when a small white "plane" flew low overhead, went over the tree line, and exploded. She wanted to tell her story to interviewers. Men in suits came to her house and asked her to change her story. The weight becomes immense... the possibility of coincidence remote.
I appreciate your continuing to look at the potential various effects of the IgG4 phenomenon. As far as I am concerned, the weight of the evidence stack for making the case that the shots are really bad mojo for anyone fighting melanoma is overwhelming. The relationship between IgG4 and melanoma has been known for some time... I just think that intuitively, most would have thought the IgG4 must be cancer antigen-specific. But no.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26451312/
. 2015 Jun 3;4(11):e1032492. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1032492. eCollection 2015 Nov.
Title: Elevated IgG4 in patient circulation is associated with the risk of disease progression in melanomas
I don't understand why, given that we have all this money being spent on public schools, we don't use it to teach simple trades and engineering stuff. People should be able to walk around the world and understand what they are seeing. Simple things like septic tanks, what bedrock is vs regolith, etc. I didn't learn any of that until very recently despite being "bright at science" in grade school.
This discussion is very topical since I think we need to fight against the Scott Adams "coin flip" contention and find a means to describe how some of us came to the right conclusions very early on. How to codify this process? I don't have the answers to a universally applicable protocol, but again, for me, beyond just being willing to QUESTION EVERYTHING there is this business of weighing evidence. In a world where most don't understand the difference between linear and exponential functions, I don't hold out much hope.
I agree, and this is why I despair at the tendency for "our side" to latch onto the "here's a string of quotes from abstracts and a chart that PROVES the vaxxed are going to die from OAS" style of "analysis." Because it just reflects the original core problem, which is not understanding that in science and especially biology most claims are not grounded in actual knowledge. It needs to all be relabeled natural philosophy like I have said elsewhere. "Nation's top natural philosopher says experimental gene injection safe" is transparently problematic.
The operation was to convince the world, via harmonized fear porn and not fit for purpose PCR "tests" that the constellation of seasonal respiratory distresses, largely the flu, was the bioweapon that was deployed by the injections. Meanwhile the ifr turned out to be quite similar to the flu (less at most age grouos) via treatment prevention and Cares Act incentivized iatrogenicide. They literally debated, in email exchanges. which animal to blame for zoonosis without consideration for wether or not said animals were sold at the Wuhan wet market.
Off-Guardian did a multi-part series on 9/11 - Plandemonium parallels. And there is an excellent Mark Crispin Miller 3 part series of videos on the topic.
Ultimately, I feel like the dialogue on most of these topics is hopelessly flawed by a desire to simplify and classify. I mean, what does “inside job” even mean? The government did it? What the hell is the “government” anyway?
As always, I feel as much as we would like to construct overarching narratives, most events are too complex to do so. All one can hope to do is ask very specific questions to find particular answers. With 9/11, WTC7 stands out like a sore thumb. I might be able to buy into airplanes and jet fuel, combined with a unique (and ridiculous?) architectural configuration leading to the pancaking effect for the Twin Towers, but there’s frankly no reasonable explanation why I shouldn’t believe my eyes when it comes to 7 looking like a controlled demolition. As far as the grand scheme of things goes, that means the government (whatever that is) and it’s authorities are not completely accurate in their account of the events of that day. Which means they’re not to be trusted entirely. Also, water is wet.
COVID and the pandemic is even a trickier nut to crack because it’s not a singular event. Much of it is, by nature, unable to be seen. That means it doesn’t even require a conspiracy of deception to create confusion. It just needs ignorance, hubris, profit motive, and a willingness to engage in storytelling. The latter is perhaps the most powerful. Ultimately, we’re all “conspiracy theorists”, mainstream and alternative sources alike. It’s so hard to not take something that we’ve deemed fact and extrapolate dozens of additions conclusions onto it, and most of the time we’re completely unaware that we’re doing it. And unfortunately, this method of narrative construction is the only way to even build consensus, because you can’t agree with something if nothing is being asserted. So to me, aside from on the most specific inquiries, consensus will always be wrong.
I can imagine that when people get to Heaven the first thing is they report their impression of reality to an interviewer and the interviewer is just constantly doing that "shake head and raise eyebrows at the same time" thing
Maybe a problem of the conspiracy minded is their susceptibility to far over-estimate their own importance in the grand scheme of things :-) whereas in reality the other 98% of society are a much easier play.
Possibly there is some logic in the claim that the US develop a 'bio weapon' and release near the WIV so the Chinese government get blamed for it, but in that case the Darpa proposal via EcoHealth would be a really stupid own goal as it turns blame back to the NIH and saint Fauci and indeed the US goverment itself.
I think that proposal tipped the Chinese government off such that they initiated their own research, and the efforts at containing it sadly were markedly inferior to the contagiousness of the virus.
As for WTC the controlled demolition theories divert attention away from the likelihood Mossad knew it would happen and chose not to inform the US, so they could be useful as a smokescreen to any 'deep state'.
Right, but the diverting to the NIH would have been essentially brilliance. It locked in the counter-narrative as this "forbidden fruit" that could then be tossed to the masses like limited hangout Oprah car keys.
Which is the problem with it, as I acknowledge. Maybe it's too brilliant. Maybe it implies the Government cares what we think at all. Both dangerous assumptions.
I’m kind of thinking that the Mossad probably told the US agencies about parts of the 9-11 plot and they chose to ignore it-just like they ignored the Russians when they were warned about the Boston marathon bombers. A lot of this is the same exact patterns over and over again. The intelligence agencies aren’t anywhere as clever as they think they are. And that instead of focusing on the hijackers, they were spying illegally on Americans. After the towers fell, they blew up tower 7 for reasons unknown (maybe debris from the planes that would have shown another thing they screwed up at, like explosive material, etc fell on that building and they had to get rid of that evidence), and then they used the whole cock-up to usher in something to cover up their earlier illegal spying on US citizens, they pushed through the Patriot Act with the horrible FISA court- the FBI plaything for 3 hop wire-taps.
I have MANY thoughts now. Head hurts. Your post is exciting.
I won't write all because then my head will hurt even more.
Is this the link to the interview of Gage?
https://rumble.com/v28f19m-richard-gage-a-scientific-analysis-of-911-building-collapse.html
First, Nick Hudson is about to convert to our NAV cult. He is scheduled to be initiated this February new Moon, I have already bought the goat's blood from Amazon. It's a messy ceremony, I've asked for an abridged version with fewer pig-latin words. they won't listen because I'm new and still lower in the hierarchy, that's why I have to bring more people.
The truth is the NAV is not a red herring or a psyop. This is simplicity and honesty. It is difficult to cross the sea of confusion to reach the island of simplicity. We are waiting for all the good guys to follow the stars and reach here some day.
Brian, do you know how to use an astrolabe?
Anyway.
I remember Kevin McCairn from his fight with Mark Bailey. The celts are so funny. This beautiful and endless energy that screams "YOU ARE WRONG AND NOW LET'S FIGTH! RULES OF MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY!"
Tom Cowan has the same energy. A lot of people dislike him precisely for that, I think. And Kelly Brogan also has mean celtic energy. And Kevin Corbett. So many of you. I can't keep up.
That energy is best directed against the British, who are always wrong about everything. A bunch of savage vikings. No respect for the Earth. I understand your hatred for the English, I'm from Spain (about 10% percent celtic)
To be fair, the English have some qualities. Not in politics or in anything that has to do with food, dancing or being happy, but there are some qualities somewhere, I'm sure. For example, I like watercolor painting. Probably they stole the idea from the Scots, but, hey, all empires steal ideas all the fucking day: the Babylonians (too long to explain,) the Romans (almost every Greek invention,) the Chinese (Buddhism).
Nature often rhymes, you say. There is one thought that often appears in my highly chaotic thinking: is the spontaneous formation of life possible? Years ago I was reading that story about the hypothetical primordial soup. The story, very encyclopedically dumbed down, was leading the reader to form the image that all life comes from one ancestor replicating protein-like structure that just appeared in one place, just like that. This is problematic. Why only one tiny spot of the primordial soup would have exactly the only composition necessary for life to emerge after the workings of randomness? Wouldn't there many such spots everywhere? Many ancestors? No! The real truth is there is just one Most Recent Common Ancestor. A Salomonic solution to a dilemma that appeared from the vice of using wrong premises and taking a myth seriously.
So. What if it was possible for life to emerge anywhere, anytime? That this was not an uncommon phenomenon? Only that they don't go too far. They become extinct soon. Before they can pay their income tax. Outrageous!
What if living bodies were a good place on earth for new life forms to appear?
So, for whatever non-reason, a cosmic ray crosses a tiny spot above my right eyebrow. A few bits and pieces of incomplete DNA coming from a dead cell get the spark of life. The "four letters" of life coalesce in a new combination that happens to be valid.
For some unknown mechanism, the new DNA (or whatever we choose to call that) begins to attract matter and forms a membrane. It is now all cozy in its nucleus, drafting a new conspiracy about the elections. It begins to do more magic, and chooses to become some kind of cell. It even decides to do some fancy meiosis. Until now, an immune system was observing the whole process with great scientific curiosity. But its killer instinct decides to pass to action right after mitosis ends, and my real human cells begin to cry for halp. The new species without ancestor has died: total population of 2.
Is this story possible according to your vast knowledge, dear Brian?
If so, I imagine that we may be at greater danger than we think we are. If we choose to be paranoid. The least psychotic part of my brain says: if nothing has happened yet, why bother looking for those disgusting actualities? Let them remain theoretical and enjoy life!
From a page in from the book of potentialities, published in the year 2333 AD: "Three hundred years ago, it was discovered for the last time that viruses don't exist. The phenomena observed carefully over the years was being explained using a wrong set of concepts. That lead to much strife and destruction. Scientists discovered that diseases of the body have many causes and they began to find many cures very soon after that. This lead to two centuries of very fast discoveries. The first Intergalactic probes, the slower ones, were built on year 2220 by the 26th clone of Doctor Brian Mowrey. The probes, now only in museums, allowed deep exploration and the first full teleportation of a Shih Tzu dog to a inhabitable planet in Andromeda, who reported back saying everything was okay and he wanted more jerky."
Nature often rhymes. Yes. The zero transmission is almost-not-a-virus-ism. But more conservative. And excessive. Too much to protect. Something 's gotta give. Rhyming with that, the more progressive "A little help" VOCs model seems to be more unstable. In the end we will all believe what Malone (is Malone an Irish name?) says we must believe, right? Isn't he like Asimov's "The Mule" character in a couple of ways? Anyway, I think Malone likes that progressive model better than the infectious clones model. He will not go near NAV, that was made very clear a year ago.
I think that is a shame. I mean, we have this beautiful false model of NAV that leaves everyone off the hook and the comptrollers of the narrative won't use it yet?
Well, there is the Omertà. A lot of people have a bookcase full of alibis and excuses, but their servants are criminals. They must protect themselves. A brotherhood of the servants of the perpetrators was born. They are not dumb. They know they can be thrown under the bus. They need power too.
NAV would destroy them, I think.
The omertà model is simple. We are all blocked because they need to have us forzen in place. It's like the 9-11 willfull ignorance model. It simplifies everything. People prefer not to go to war. I don't hear, I don't see, I don't speak. Nothing fancy. Just exploiting the bias for normalcy.
But it won't work this time. There is no normalcy. Kids are dying and I am not a hysteric. Mark Crispin Miller's work says the English suck and I am right on kids being murdered and people becoming sterile and the largest land grab in history, etc. This is more huge than we ever thought.
I think you will be closer to NAV before Christmas. Not yet there. You will be like Nick Hudson around May 2024, and your induction in the denialist cult will take place in 18th June 2024.
Public health, disease prevention is very important. If we discover that we have been doing it wrong, in a few ways, we may allow ourselves to grieve for a minute or two, and then learn how to do it better. Change can be good sometimes. Important things should not be any where near corrupt executive of any form of government, of private or of public affairs. That is my worthless opinion of today.
I have written enough. I hope you laughed from my comment, which was laced with a few lines designed for at least a chortle.
"What if it was possible for life to emerge anywhere, anytime? That this was not an uncommon phenomenon?"
There is certainly something curious about the fact that so much can be done with just a handful of atoms. DNA is not merely a "code" like bits written in a disk, it's more like the bits in the disk can themselves perform processor functions. So you have gene regulation from secondary structure, ribose modifications, electrical interactions, etc. Was it just an accident that sugars can function as supercomputers, seemingly coming to the threshold of possessing consciousness?
But I don't see how that is a good argument against viruses as we understand them in the post-genetic era being real, quite the contrary.
I am aiming for the third way that is "viruses are real but not as we thought."
There is the story that there are code for viruses buried inside the individual human genome. What if due to some internal process related to the death of the cell an enzyme were to create a virus (perhaps one that has never existed outside, because of some error) from inside the cell, which copies itself, and then, as the cell dies, it comes outside the cell, creating the appearance that the cell died because an exogenous virus made it sick and finally killed it?
And this could be elicited by some weird frequency from the outside (I'm thinking in a microwave oven big enough to receive a 6" 260 pounds politician, but other "death ray"-like frequencies or waves are valid for this thought experiment, like the disintegration gun in "Mars Attacks".) That frequency that tells cells to die, and produce "viruses" can affect (in this conjecture) many people at once, creating the illusion of "contagion" of disease.
This is a way to put together parts of the NAV-side theories and parts of the standard microbiology theories.
Said more schematically:
1. Something outside happens
2. Cell is dying, time for life to bug-out
3. viruses are now detectable around other cells because a sibling cell has exploded and everything is dirty
4. scientists find the stuff that appeared after 2, and claim it was there before 1 and caused 1
5. Point one is not limited to one individual organism
This conjecture is a not an argument against viruses being real, but an argument for viruses being not pathogenic, but the result of a disease process.
The possibility that endogenous virus can cause disease in other cells is something that probably would be denied by most people in the NAV-side. I happen to believe that a broken piece of brick and mortar that falls as an building is being destroyed and falls over me is likely to hurt me. Perhaps this analogy cannot happen at the cell level.
Last, the appearance of an endogenous virus that has no real "ancestor" in the world, which is part of the idea of "spontaneous apparition of life anywhere anytime," is not limited to a buried virus sequence showing up randomly, but also is of application to smaller parts, such as atoms and molecules that are not part of a DNA molecule.
I understand this is all very "science-fiction" sounding, but I think this is a safe place to expose ny conjectures.
So, if "you," as in an organism, have genes for that, where is the best place to put them? For example if you are bacteria, you want to gobble up the molecules including DNA from other versions of you that have died. The "hive" that is you doesn't want to just let those molecules go to waste. So you would clearly benefit from some sort of self-destruct sequence genes, indeed such genes are abundant. But a lot of Programmed Cell Death depends on fratricide. This implies that dying cells can't always be trusted to execute PCD, and that makes sense, because if they are dying then gene expression is going to be spotty. But with communal PCD the living part of you is still having to expend metabolic resources to recycle from the dead part of you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7104603/
So you can see where this might create an evolutionary landscape where the same communal PCD genes get exported to a self-replicating plasmid. Then as soon as non-competent, dying bacteria stop expressing immune restriction enzymes the virus does the work for the hive in recycling the material. This seems to feature in floating bacteria where the UV-killed ones near the top are lysed by viruses so their resources sink down to the living ones below (because viruses are more resilient to UV despite being "killed" by it) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344481672_Viruses_and_the_Evolution_of_Life)
So there's no real distinction. Genes don't have to come from inside to be part of "the genome" for any life form.
Thank you for your answer. I'll keep that in mind. I'm learning so much these days. Substack is great.
One more question, please: the higher resiliency of viruses relative to bacteria is due to the size difference? Like a 6'8" infantry soldier (bacterium) is an easier target for snipers (photons) than a 5'4" infanry soldier (virus)?
(Example not to scale)
Well, that's certainly beyond what I thought the going substack character limit is, haha. I have been told that I am 50% Irish (haven't met said 50%). In light of this, I decided against describing McCairn's persona using a Jeremy Clarkson reference, even though there's heavy class warfare overlap.
"The truth is the NAV is not a red herring or a psyop. This is simplicity and honesty." My critiques of NAV are usually that it is disempowering. It asks us to surrender naked-eye observations and assessments of the human experience to whether electron microscopes can jump over this or that hurdle. The word "virus" predates germ theory. It simply means invisible disease transmitting thing. Can anyone in NAV space explain why people before germ theory, who all lived on farms and spent every hour immersed in nature, were poorer judges of biology than themselves?
Probably substack will add a "character limit in comments" feature someday, and then you will have to put me down like a Newfoundland Mastif who eats too much.
I will ask around about your question about the traditional views of common people.
I understand your point about it being disempowering.
The electron microscope issue is not exactly where they insist, but in the need to correctly find something from a diseased individual using analytic chemistry methods.
I think Cowan criticizes the optical microscope as being disempowering or confusing in one of his books. He admits his books contain errors, by the way. That's one of the problems of publishing many books: one is bound to go to each household apologizing for this page or that graph that had the x-axis in a log scale but the curve was linear for an inexplicable error.
Thank you!